Selected  Rules 


OF 

BOTANICAL  NOMENCLATURE 

(Especially  those  of  interest  to  foresters.) 


By  CHARLES  E.  BESSEY 


REPRINTED  FROM 

THE  FOREST  CLUB  ANNUAL,  II 

Lincoln  , A/(p  L 


1910 


motoG* 


580.  I 

34G  se 


THE  NOMENCLATURE  OF  FOREST  TREES. 

Charles  E.  Bessey 

Since  forest  trees  are  plants  and  since  they  are  subject  to 
the  same  changes  of  names  as  other  plants,  it  follows  that  their 
nomenclature  must  be  in  every  way  identical  with  the  general 
nomenclature  of  plants.  From  the  earliest  times  it  has  been 
necessary  to  have  rules  of  some  sort  in  regard  to  the  naming 
of  plants.  The  earliest  definite  formulation  of  such  rules  was 
made  by  the  great  Swedish  botanist,  Linne,  about  the  middle 
of  the  eighteenth  century.  His  rules  were  written  in  Latin, 
which  was  then  the  prevailing  language  of  learning,  Botany  in- 
cluded. These  rules  have  been  revised  and  amended  since 
Linne’s  time,  and  are  now  well  known  to  all  working  botanists, 
and  should  be  equally  well  known  to  all  foresters. 

In  1867  a notable  revision  of  these  rules  occurred  in  the 
International  Botanical  Congress  which  was  held  in  Paris  in 
that  year.  An  English  edition  of  these  rules  was  published  un- 
der the  title  “Laws  of  Botanical  Nomenclature  Adopted  by  the 
International  Botanical  Congress  Held  at  Paris  in  August, 
1867”.  This  body  of  rules  is  known  as  the  “Paris  Code,”  and 
it  has  been  the  basis  of  all  recent  regulations  as  to  nomenclature. 
About  fifteen  years  ago  many  American  botanists  feeling  that 
the  laws  of  nomenclature  were  not  sufficiently  definite  in  regard 
to  certain  points,  made  some  modifications  of  the  “Paris 
Code,”  and  these  were  printed  and  issued  under  the  name  of  the 
“ Rochester  Code”,  by  the  Botanical  Club  of  the  American  Asso- 
ciation for  the  Advancement  of  Science.  Certain  American 
botanists,  however,  from  the  first,  objected  to  these  Rochester 
rules  and  refused  to  abide  by  them.  Further  modification  of 
these  rules  were  made  subsequently  at  a meeting  in  Philadel- 
phia, and  these  later  rules  have  been  known  as  the  Philadel- 
phia Code”.  All  these  changes  however,  were  based  upon  the 
“Paris  Code”  which  had  been  adopted  by  an  International 
body  of  botanists. 

In  1905,  after  several  years  of  agitation,  another  Interna- 
tional Botanical  Congress  was  held  in  Vienna,  and  the  result 
was  a considerable  revision  of  the  “Paris  Code.”  The  rules 


y 45827 


8 


Forest  Club  Annual 


issued  by  this  Congress  are  known  as  “The  International  Buies 
for  Botanical  Nomenclature,  Adopted  by  the  International  Bo- 
tanical Congress  of  Vienna,  1905”.  This  latest  statement  is 
now  accepted  very  generally  throughout  the  world.  Some  of 
the  American  botanists  who  had  taken  part  in  the  formulation 
of  the  Bochester  and  the  Philadelphia  codes  have  not  yet  ac- 
cepted the  “Vienna  Code”,  but  since  the  latter  includes  much 
of  what  was  originally  in  controversy  between  many  American 
and  the  foreign  botanists,  it  is  desirable  that  the  Vienna  rules 
should  be  accepted,  even  though  they  do  not  fully  express  the 
ideas  of  some  of  the  more  progressive  American  botanists. 

I have  gone  over  this  “Vienna  Code”  and  selected  from  it 
those  rules  which  are  of  most  importance  to  foresters,  and  have 
given  them  with  some  little  modification  of  the  language,  and 
with  some  comments  which  I have  added.  These  rules  as  here 
given  then  are  based  upon  the  “Vienna  Code”,  but  are  not 
identical  in  language  with  that  code. 


STATEMENT  of  such  EULES  for  BOTANICAL  NOMEN- 
CLATUEE  as  are  of  INTEEEST  to  FOBESTEBS. 

(Based  upon  the  “Vienna  Code”  of  1905.) 

1.  Natural  history  can  make  no  progress  without  a regu- 
lar system  of  nomenclature  which  is  recognized  and  used  by 
the  great  majority  of  naturalists  in  all  countries. 

2.  The  rules  of  nomenclature  must  not  be  arbitrary  nor 
imposed  upon  scientific  men  by  mere  authority,  but  they  must 
be  founded  upon  considerations  which  are  clear  and  forcible 
enough  to  be  comprehended  and  accepted  by  scientific  men  in 
general. 

3.  The  essential  things  to  be  reached  by  the  Botanical 
Code  of  rules  as  to  nomenclature  are:  (a)  Fixity  of  names, 
(b)  The  avoidance  of  confusion  by  the  creation  of  useless 
names,  (c)  Means  for  rejecting  names  which  may  lead  to 
error  or  ambiguity. 

4.  No  custom  or  practice  which  is  contrary  to  rule  can  be 
upheld  if  it  leads  to  confusion  or  error. 

5.  It  is  very  desirable  that  the  principles  and  rules  of 


The  Nomenclature  of  Forest  Trees  9 

nomenclature  should  be  as  similar  as  possible  in  Botany  and 
Zoology. 

6.  Scientific  names  of  all  kinds  that  are  used  in  classifica- 
tion must  be  in  Latin.  When  taken  from  or  based  upon  a word 
or  words  in  another  language  they  must  be  Latinized  and  so 
modified  that  they  are  essentially  Latin  names.  (It  is  only  by 
following  this  rule  strictly  that  we  can  secure  uniformity  in 
names;  otherwise  we  should  have  names  in  English,  in  French, 
in  German,  in  Russian,  Chinese,  Japanese,  etc.  As  an  illus- 
tration of  the  advantage  of  Latin  names  for  plants  I may  re- 
fer to  the  “Botanical  Magazine”  published  in  Tokyo,  Japan. 
One  portion  of  this  magazine  is  printed  in  the  Japanese  lan- 
guage, and  yet  all  botanical  names  in  this  part  are  printed  in 
Latin  and  have  exactly  the  same  form  that  they  have  in  Euro- 
pean languages.) 

7.  It  is  a rule  in  Botany  which  has  been  maintained  for 
many  years  that  every  plant  belongs  to  a “species”,  every  spe- 
cies to  a “genus”,  every  genus  to  a “family”,  and  every  family 
to  an  “order”,  and  every  order  to  a “class”,  etc.  (It  is  essen- 
tial that  the  sequence  given  here  should  be  followed,  and  not 
varied  from  in  any  particular.  This  preserves  uniformity  in  the 
general  arrangement  of  all  kinds  of  plants  in  lists  of  system- 
atic works. 

8.  Below  species  we  may  destinguish  “varieties”  which 
are  more  marked,  and  “forms”  which  are  less  well  marked 
variations  from  the  specific  type.  (Here  again  it  is  essential 
that  these  words  be  used  in  this  sense  alone;  to  use  the  word 
“variety”  when  we  mean  “species”  is  a common,  but  inexcus- 
able error.) 

9.  Although  the  definitions  of  species,  genera,  families, 
etc.  will  vary  with  different  botanists,  yet  there  always  has  been 
a pretty  general  agreement,  and  the  differences  of  opinion  in 
regard  to  the  limits  of  these  groups  are  of  minor  importance. 
fThis  paragraph  is  of  importance  inasmuch  as  there  is  a wide- 
spread impression  outside  of  botanical  circles  that  botanists  are 
entirely  at  loggerheads  in  regard  to  these  matters.  The  fact  is 
that  there  is  vastly  more  of  agreement  than  of  disagreement  in 
regard  to  the  limits  of  these  groups. 


10 


Forest  Club  Annual 


10.  When  one  species  is  fertilized  by  another  the  result  is 
a “hybrid”,  when  one  variety  is  fertilized  by  another  the  re- 
sult is  a “halfbreed”,  sometimes  called  a “cross”  or  “mixture”. 

11.  Every  natural  group  of  plants  (species,  genus,  fam- 
ily, etc.)  can  have  only  one  valid  name,  and  this  must  be  the 
oldest  name  applied  unless  such  name  has  been  previously  used 
for  some  other  group. 

12.  No  one  should  change  a name  without  the  best  of  rea- 
sons based  on  a more  profound  knowledge  of  the  facts  than 
previously  existed. 

13.  Botanical  nomenclature  dates  back  to  Linne’s  book, 
llie  “ Species  Plant-arum”,  which  was  published  in  1753. 

14.  In  order  that  certain  old  names  which  had  been  in 
general  use  for  a long  time  should  not  be  changed,  the  Vienna 
( Congress  prepared  a list  of  names  to  be  preserved  in  spite  of 
the  law  which  requires  that  the  oldest  name  should  in  all  cases 
be  used.  (This  rule  which  provides  for  the  preservation  of 
names  which  otherwise  would  be  changed  (see  Appendix)  has 
•been  objected  to  very  strenuously  by  many  American  botanists. 
They  hold  that  the  law  of  priority  should  be  followed  regard- 
less of  the  fact  that  under  its  strict  application  certain  names 
will  disappear ; but  a majority  of  the  Congress  having  voted  for 
this  list  of  retained  names,  this  is  at  present  a valid  rule  under 
this  Code.) 

15.  In  the  making  of  names  of  the  larger  groups,  ordinal 
names  are  to  have  the  ending  “-ales”  and  family  names  to  have 
the  ending  “-aceae”. 

16.  It  is  recommended  that  botanists  in  making  generic 
names  should  use  judgment  and  taste  by  (a)  not  making  names 
very  long,  or  difficult  to  pronounce,  (b)  not  using  a name  that 
has  already  been  used  and  that  has  become  a synonym,  (c)  not 
naming  genera  for  persons  who  are  not  botanists  or  who  are 
generally  quite  unknown,  (4)  not  taking  names  from  barbarous 
tongues,  (e)  not  making  a name  by  the  combination  of  words 
from  two  different  languages. 

17.  The  botanical  name  of  a plant  is  always  the  genus 
name  immediately  followed  bv  the  species  name.  The  two 


The  Nomenclature  of  Forest  Trees 


11 


words  constitute  parts  of  one  name.  The  names  of  genera 
must  begin  with  a small  letter  excepting  those  that  are  taken 
from  the  names  of  persons  or  from  generic  names.  (This  rule, 
which  is  one  of  the  minor  ones  called  “Recommendations”  is 
not  followed  by  all  of  the  botanists.  There  is  a growing  feel- 
ing in  favor  of  the  decapitalization  of  all  specific  names,  and  in 
my  opinion  this  is  the  better  way). 

18.  In  forming  specific  names  for  plants  botanists  are  rec- 
ommended to  (a)  avoid  very  long  names  and  those 
which  are  difficult  to  pronounce,  (b)  avoid  names 
taken  from  little  known  localities,  (c)  avoid  names  which  ex- 
press a character  which  is  common  to  other  species  of  the  same 
genus,  (d)  avoid  names  which  are  similar  to  others  used  in  the 
same  genus,  (e)  avoid  names  which  have  been  previously  used 
in  a genus  and  which  have  become  synonyms,  (f)  avoid  naming 
a species  after  a person  who  has  neither  discovered,  nor  de- 
scribed nor  in  any  way  studied  it,  (g)  avoid  making  specific 
mimes  of  two  words  (unless  they  are  fused  into  one  word),  (h), 
avoid  names  which  have  the  same  meaning  as  the  genus  name. 

19.  Two  species  of  the  same  genus  cannot  bear  the  same 
specific  name.  (This  rule  is  exactly  in  accord  with  the  rule 
among  people.  We  do  not  give  different  children  in  the  same 
family  the  same  name). 

20.  Hybrids  between  species  are  to  be  indicated  by  the 
sign  x;  thus  when  a hybrid  has  been  made  between  two  species 
of  willow  the  designation  is,  as  follows : Salix  aurita  x caprea. 
If  the  hybrid  is  between  species  of  different  genera  both  names 
must  be  written  out  in  full  with  the  x sign  between,  thus; 
Ammophila  arenaria  x Calamagrostis  epigeios. 

21.  When  a name  is  given  to  a plant,  in  order  to  be  ef- 
fective it  must  be  described  sufficiently  to  be  identified,  and 
this  name  and  description  must  be  printed  and  distributed  to  the 
public,  especially  the  botanical  public. 

22.  On  and  after  January  1,  1908  the  publication  of 
names  of  new  groups  will  be  valid  only  when  accompanied  by 
a Latin  diagnosis.  (This  rule,  which  at  first  seems  to  be  arbi- 
trary, is  very  desirable.  Latin  is  the  only  universal  language, 
and  if  all  original  descriptions  are  put  in  Latin  they  can  be 


read  by  people  of  all  nationalities.  Think  of  what  the  condition 
would  be  if  Russians,  Japanese,  Chinese,  and  other  botanists 
wrote  their  descriptions  in  their  own  languages  ! A botanist 
would  have  to  be  a veritable  polyglot  in  order  to  consult  the 
original  descriptions.) 

23.  A name  alone,  unaccompanied  by  the  description,  al- 
though published  properly,  is  not  accepted  by  botanists.  (The 
reason  for  this  is  obvious.  A name  alone  gives  no  clue  to  the 
plant  itself,  but  must  be  accompanied  by  a description. ) 

24.  The  date  of  the  name  is  that  of  the  proper  publication, 
as  indicated  above.  This  is  important  where  the  same  plant 
has  been  described  by  different  people.  In  such  cases  the  ear- 
liest description  properly  published  is  the  one  which  is  re- 
tained. 

25.  In  order  that  dates  and  descriptions  may  be  verified 
the  name  of  the  author  who  first  published  the  name  must 
follow  it.  (Some  people  object  to  appending  the  author’s  name 
to  the  botanical  name,  but  in  the  careful  work  necessary  in 
scientific  botany  it  is  desirable  that  a reference  to  the  original 
publication  should  be  easily  made.) 

26.  When  a genus  is  divided  into  two  or  more  genera  the 
original  name  must  be  kept,  and  given  to  one  of  the  new  gen- 
era, and  the  rule  provides  that  the  old  name  should  go  with 
the  more  important  new  genus. 

27.  When  two  genera  are  united  into  one,  the  older  of  the 
two  names  is  to  be  retained. 

28.  Names  cannot  be  rejected  or  changed  or  modified 
merely  because  they  are  badly  chosen  or  disagreeable  or  because 
a particular  botanist  prefers  another.  A name  should  be 
changed  however; 

(a)  When  the  plant  has  an  earlier  name  which  is  valid. 

(b)  When  the  name  is  based  upon  a monstrosity. 

(c)  When  the  specific  name  merely  repeats  the  generic 
name. 

(The  third  of  these  (c)  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  prac- 
tice of  many  botanists,  who  write  Catalpa  catalpa,  Liriaria  Un- 
arm, etc.) 

29.  When  the  species  is  moved  from  one  genus  to  another 


The  Nomenclature  of  Forest  Trees 


13 


its  name  must  not  be  changed  unless  it  is  found  that  the  same 
name  has  previously  been  used  in  that  genus. 

30.  The  original  spelling  of  the  name  must  be  retained  ex- 
cept in  case  of  a typographical  or  orthographical  error,  and  it  is 
recommended  that  this  liberty  of  making  corrections  should  be 
very  judiciously  used. 

Under  the  minor  rules  the  following  recommendations  are 
made. 

31.  Botanists  should  use  the  scientific  names  of  plants,  pre- 
ferably to  names  of  any  other  kind,  unless  the  so-called  “com- 
mon names”  are  clear  and  actually  in  use. 

32.  Every  friend  of  science  should  oppose  the  introduction 
into  modern  language  of  the  names  of  plants  which  are  not 
already  there,  unless  such  names  are  derived  from  the  Latin  bo- 
tanical names.  (This  rule,  if  followed,  would  provide  for 
Anglicized  names  rather  than  the  so-called  common  names.) 

33.  The  metric  system  is  recommended  for  use  in  Botany 
for  reckoning  weights,  measures,  etc.,  and  it  is  especially  rec- 
ommended that  such  measures  as  foot,  inch,  line,  etc.,  should  be 
rigorously  excluded  from  scientific  language. 

34.  Very  minute  dimensions  are  to  be  reckoned  in  micro- 
millimeters  (microns,  or  thousandths  of  a millimeter.) 

35.  Temperatures  are  to  be  expressed  in  degrees  of  the 
Centigrade  thermometer. 


APPENDIX 


List  of  names  of  interest  to  the  Forester  to  be  retained  in  spite 
of  the  Law  of  Priority,  as  recommended  by  the  “Vienna  Code.” 


Family 

Cycadaceae 


Zamia  L.,1763, 

Podocarpus  L’Her,  1807 
Phyllocladus  L.  C.  Rich.,  1826 
Agathis  Salisb.  1807 
Cunninghamia  R.  Br.  1826, 
Sequoia  Endl.  1 847 
Arenga  Labill  1803, 
Chamaedorea  Willd,  1806 
Desmoncus  Mart.  1823-50 


Retain  these  names 


Palmafilix  Adans.  1763 
Nageia  Gaertn.  1788 
Podocarpus  Labill  1 806 
Dammara  Rumph,  1786-8 
Belis  Salisb.  1 807 
Steinhauera  Presl  1838 
Saguerus  Rumph.  1763 
Nunnezharia  Ruizet  Pav.  1794 
Atitara  Marcgr.  1741 
( Scoria  Raf.  1 808 
< Hicorius  Raf.  1817 
( Hicoria  Raf.  1838 
Abelicea  Reichb.  1828 


Instead  of  these 


Taxaceae 

Taxaceae 

Pinaceae 

Pinaceae 

Pinaceae 

Palmaceae 

Palmaceae 

Palmaceae 


Juglandaceae  Garya  Nutt.  1818, 

Ulmaceae  Zelkova  Spach.  1841 


Appendix  Continued  on  next  page. 


14 


Forest  Club  Aimual 


Moraceae  Maclura  Nutt.  1818 

Loranthaceae  Arceuthobium  Marsch-Bieb.  1819 
Menispermaceae  Cocculus  DC.  1818 
Calycanthaceae  Calycanthus  L.  1 759 

Myristicaceae  Myristica  L.  1 742 


Rosaceae 

Rosaceae 

Leguminosae 

Simarubaceae 

Aquifoliaceae 

Theaceae 

Ganellaceae 

Elaeagnaceae 

Ericaceae 

Verbenaceae 


Physocarpus  Maxim.  1879 
Holodiscus  Maxim.  1879 
Wistaria  N utt.  1818 
Ailanthus  Desf.  1786 
Nemopanthus  Raf.  1819 
Gordonia  Ellis.  1770 
Canella,  P.  Br.  1756 
Shepherdia  Nutt.  1818 
Gaylussacia  H.  B.  K.  1 8 1 8 
Tectona  L.  1781 


Toxylon  Raf.  1817 
Razoumowskia  Hoffm.  1808 
Gebatha  Forsk.  1775 
i Beurreria  Ehret  1755 
) Butneria  Duhamel  1755 
i Comacum  Adans.  1763 
« Aruana  Burm.  1769 
Opulaster  Medik.  1799 
Schizonotus  Raf.  1836 
KraunhiaRaf.  1808 
Pongelion  Adans.  1763 
llicioides  Dumont.  1802 
Lasianthus  Adans . 1763 
Winterana  L.  1759 
Lepargyrea  Raf.  1818 
Adnaria  Raf.  1817 
Theka  Adans.  1763 


Although  under  the  action  of  the  Vienna  Congress  the  names  in- 
cated  above  are  to  be  retained,  I cannot  think  the  action  a wise  one. 
If  we  are  to  follow  the  suggestions  made  in  paragraph  28  above,  we 
ought  not  to  reject  the  earlier  names  in  the  foregoing  list.  It  is  illogi- 
cal to  make  a rule  (“the  law  of  priority”)  and  then  to  provide  for  a 
disregard  of  it  in  certain  favored  cases.  We  may  hope  for  the  ulti- 
mate abolition  of  this  list  of  names  to  be  retained  contrary  to  the 
law  of  priority. 


